Femi Fani-Kayode’s insistence that the January 15th, 1966 coup was an “Igbo coup” is not only reductive but also dangerously divisive. Historical events, particularly those as complex and far-reaching as the 1966 coup, cannot and should not be reduced to simplistic ethnic labels. Such rhetoric perpetuates harmful stereotypes, inflames ethnic tensions, and distorts historical facts for political or personal gain.
First, Fani-Kayode’s claim that 99% of the officers involved in the coup were Igbo is an oversimplification of a multi-faceted event. While prominent Igbo officers like Major Kaduna Nzeogwu played leading roles, it is misleading to paint the entire coup with a single ethnic brush. The coup had supporters and participants across different ethnic groups, and its objectives—whether misguided or not—were not explicitly driven by ethnic loyalty.
Second, the suggestion that 99% of those killed were non-Igbo individuals ignores key historical accounts that show the coup’s primary targets were figures seen as symbols of corruption and political oppression. While the ethnic imbalance in casualties is undeniable, attributing this solely to an ethnic agenda dismisses the complex political motivations and internal military dynamics at play during the period.
Furthermore, Fani-Kayode’s interpretation of Ibrahim Babangida’s statements is selective and skewed. Babangida’s acknowledgment of the coup’s “ethnic coloration” does not equate to an endorsement of the narrative that it was an “Igbo coup.” Babangida highlighted the ethnic perception of the coup, which was a consequence of its execution and aftermath, not necessarily its intent. Fani-Kayode’s argument conflates perception with motive, which is both misleading and irresponsible.
It is particularly reckless for Fani-Kayode to exploit sensitive historical wounds for contemporary political commentary. The 1966 coup and its aftermath plunged Nigeria into a civil war, leaving millions dead and the country scarred. Revisiting such a traumatic chapter in a manner that stokes ethnic animosity serves no constructive purpose. Instead of fostering reconciliation, such remarks deepen divisions and perpetuate historical grievances.
Fani-Kayode’s assertion that “facts are sacred and opinion is cheap” ironically undermines his own argument. Historical “facts” require nuanced interpretation, context, and understanding. Cherry-picking data to suit an ethnic narrative is the antithesis of factual rigor and objectivity. Such an approach diminishes the credibility of the historian and the discourse itself.
In conclusion, Fani-Kayode’s attempt to label the 1966 coup as an “Igbo coup” is factually shaky and dangerously inflammatory. His comments disregard the complexity of historical events and their socio-political contexts. At a time when Nigeria needs unity and healing, such divisive rhetoric should be strongly condemned and replaced with narratives that foster understanding, reconciliation, and national cohesion.